I read with considerable interest the above regarding a medical review. The fallacies contained in this report were so egregious, I felt compelled to correct them . This irresponsible report is confirmation of my (and most Americans) distrust and disdain for lawyers in this country >
First of all , Dr. Lieberman is NOT and has NEVER BEEN affiliated with Network Medical Associates.
His work for Met Life has been a minuscule part of his occupation which is that of a board certified practicing and teaching Rheumatologist . The contention of whether the claimant HAD fibro was never in doubt . The question that was asked of Dr. Lieberman was, was this claimant unable to perform the duties of ANY OCCUPATION because of it > The records , although confirming the diagnosis , showed no objective evidence of this. The claimant's migraines and depression are separate entities and were not part of the review Dr Lieberman was asked to conduct > From a pure FM standpoint ,this and most with this condition should be able to perform the duties of at least light duty occupations.This is a statement not made up whimsically , but born out by most rheumatologists (and the NIH consensus report on FM ) not having a direct interest in perpetuating disability. While it is clearly helpful to examine the patient , this was not (and traditionally is not) an option provided to him. However, his years as a practicing Rheumatologist , have made him more than qualified to understand the intricacies of this case. His discussion( not purported but real ) peer to peer with the claimant's treating Rheumatologist was quite clear in that he felt the claimant could work in light duty . Frequently , these peer to peer conversations are MORE revealing as to the actual beliefs of the treating physician than the office notes , which by nature are more advocating to the "doctor patient relationship " .These statements were not JUMPED ON , but were carefully evaluated along with the preponderance of evidence regarding the functionality from a fibromyalgia perspective .
Furthermore , the opinions by the SSI judge were not available , but frequently are subject to the skill of the claimant's attorney rather than substantial medical evidence ( see OJ Simpson re: skilled attorneys). The records provided were felt to be those that were relevant.
In regards to understanding , it is clear that the lawyer writing this report has little knowledge of the condition. First off , it is never referred to as "fibrositis " by anyone knowledgeable anymore . Also . it is a syndrome , not a disease. The fact that it is chronic , is not evidence that it is disabling.
I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of this report but it likely will not make a dent in irresponsible thinking of lawyers who are paid by their ability to con and "work" the legal system to their monetary benefit under the guise of helping the common man.